Kopels (1992) challenged the NASW position regarding school social workers' ethical obligations to whom?

• A. Are primarily accountable to school administrators
• B. Only owe ethical duties to the students
• C. Have multiplicity of clients to whom ethical obligations are owed
• D. Are exempt from parental rights

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is that school social workers have ethical duties to more than one client group, not just a single client. Kopels challenged the idea that the NASW view limits obligations to one primary client in the school setting. He argued that, because school social workers operate within a network of relationships, their ethical responsibilities extend to multiple client systems: students, families, school staff and administration, the school as an organization, and sometimes the broader community. This multiplicity means ethical decision-making must consider how actions affect all these groups, and may involve balancing competing interests or navigating conflicts.

For example, safeguarding a student’s welfare might require confidentiality and trust with the student, while also considering parents’ rights, school policies, and safety obligations to the broader school—sometimes requiring transparency with certain stakeholders and adherence to mandatory reporting rules. The belief that obligations are owed to just one group misses the real-world complexity of school settings.

The other possibilities imply a narrower focus (to administrators alone or to students only) or misstate parental rights, which doesn’t align with Kopels’ argument that ethical obligations in schools arise from multiple client relationships.